Google launched a news-reading app called Currents on Thursday, something it has been working on for some time — ever since it was a much-rumored skunkworks project called Propeller — and much of the coverage of the new app has called it a challenger to existing tablet and iPhone news-readers like Flipboard and Zite. But while Google Currents is superficially similar to these other services, there are some important differences that make me wonder whether Google really understands how media has changed and is changing. For a company that’s usually so forward-thinking, Currents as it stands now is more than a little disappointing.

Like Flipboard and Zite, the new Google offering (available here — U.S. only at this point) allows you to pull in content from a number of sources and then read through it in a kind of digital-magazine format on a tablet or an iPhone or other mobile device (my colleague Darrell has a hands-on look at the app). As mobile media consumption becomes an ever-increasing part of our lives, this kind of app is becoming the way that many people take in a lot of their news — at least those who wish to browse rather than simply following their favorite news sources on Twitter or Facebook. And Flipboard has shown, particularly with its excellent new iPhone app, that this can be done in a way that’s just as visually appealing as a traditional magazine, if not more so.

Currents is missing some crucial elements

Google’s app, while well-designed in many ways, lacks much of the polish and user-interface elements that make Flipboard so compelling (to me at least). And at least in my limited usage of it so far, it doesn’t even manage to rise to the level that Zite provides — and Zite, a Canadian startup that was acquired by CNN earlier this year for an estimated million, is much more utilitarian in its approach than Flipboard (Zite also just released an iPhone app). It’s entirely possible Google’s app will improve over time, and it does offer some interesting features — such as the ability to sync the content you’ve read between devices — but I still think it’s missing some crucial aspects.

For example, Google Currents is social in at least one way, in that it lets you share articles you read to Twitter and Facebook, provided you click through the default menu (which promotes sharing on Google’s own Google+ network first). But it isn’t social in another important sense: Unlike both Flipboard and Zite, it doesn’t pull in your Twitter lists or streams from those you follow, or content from your Facebook social graph. In other words, you can push content out to these networks, but you can’t pull content in from them and view it inside your news reader. To me, that means Currents is only one-half of a proper social-news app — and not even the most interesting half.

Why isn’t Google helping us filter content?

The second element Google Currents seems to be missing is recommendations or some form of smart filtering of content, apart from the limited amount that appears in the “trending” section. This is something Zite has pursued aggressively, both via its algorithms and through explicit recommendations from users — thumbs up, thumbs down, etc. — and is likely one of the reasons why CNN was interested in acquiring it. Flipboard hasn’t done much in terms of recommendations so far, but has begun to do so through its iPhone app “Cover Stories” feature, which apparently learns based on a user’s activity.

As we’ve noted many times, the massive rivers of information that pour into our lives from all kinds of sources makes the need for a smart filter more compelling every day. That seems like a problem virtually tailor-made for a company like Google, which has boatloads of programmers who specialize in filtering and understanding massive amounts of real-time data, yet the company has done virtually nothing in that space — despite having a long-established platform called Google News to draw from and build on. The only thing Google has done that seems remotely interesting is adding +1 recommendations to Google News, but even that seems designed mostly to promote the Google+ network.

An app like Currents should — particularly if it wants to actually be competitive with Flipboard or Zite — be pulling in news content from every source available, especially real-time sharing networks like Twitter and Facebook. Then it should apply smart filters and recommendations to those streams, to help news consumers sort and understand that information better. Instead, Currents feels about as innovative as your garden-variety app from a traditional magazine — in other words, not very innovative at all. More than anything, it feels like a giant missed opportunity.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Izzard

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q3: Facebook remakes headlines in social media
• NewNet Q2: Google closes the quarter with a bang
• NewNet Q1: Content Farms and Niche Networks on the Rise

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Gizmodo

The recent furor over NPR host Lisa Simeone’s involvement in a Washington-based offshoot of the “Occupy Wall Street” protests has drawn attention again to the issue of whether journalists should be allowed to have — and express — their opinions about social issues. Some believe that “transparency is the new objectivity,” in the words of author David Weinberger, and that this is appropriate in an age when the web allows for a multiplicity of voices. Former Slate media critic Jack Shafer also falls into this camp, and says the days of asking journalists to pretend that they are automatons without opinions should be coming to an end.

One of the most alarming aspects of Simeone’s case is that she isn’t a political reporter for NPR or even involved in anything political at the public-radio station in Washington she was freelancing for: she hosted a musical documentary program called Soundprint for WAMU, from which she has apparently been dismissed, and was also a host of another show called World of Opera for NPR. Why would NPR or any other public-radio affiliate care whether someone hosting a music program was involved in a social protest? Because the issue of journalists — of any kind, but especially the government-funded kind — having political opinions is still fraught with controversy.

Why shouldn’t journalists be able to express opinions?

There have been plenty of other cases that make this point as well: Last year, for example, CNN Senior Editor and Middle East expert Octavia Nasr was fired after more than two decades at the news channel because she posted a sympathetic comment about the death of an alleged terrorist leader to her Twitter account. As I wrote at the time, these kinds of events force media outlets to confront the myth that journalists are objective — and that reporters can’t have or express opinions about the topics they cover. If anything, I think news consumers would be better off if they expressed themselves more rather than less, so that everyone would know where they stand.

Former Slate media critic Jack Shafer, now a columnist for Reuters, said something similar during a live discussion about objectivity and journalism hosted by the Poynter Institute on Wednesday. As Shafer put it:

We’re kidding ourselves and kidding our readers when we pretend that journalists have no opinions and no biases. My view is that journalists can’t be objective, because as human beings we are all subjective. What we can do is employ an objective method in the reporting and writing of the news: To be fair, to be accurate, to be comprehensive. If a reporter pledges to do that, I have no problem with them having opinions.

Unfortunately, Shafer says, many editors remain “deeply invested in the idea that their reporters should walk through life like un-biased zombies,” which leads them to question everything from whether reporters should be fans of specific Facebook web pages to whether they should be allowed to express opinions on their Twitter accounts. These kinds of fears are what lead to the kind of soul-less — and also ultimately unenforceable — social-media policies that many media outlets come up with, which prevent their reporters and editors from engaging with readers in any way, including in the comments on their stories or in Twitter discussions about the topics they cover.

Readers can make their own judgments about bias

Shafer said that he was sure his new employer, like most established media entities, likely restricts the ability of its journalists to belong to political parties or express political opinions, but that he thinks this is wrong. But won’t readers be misled by the biases of the journalists they listen to or read? Shafer doesn’t think so:

I have great faith in the average person because I am one. I’m of normal height, normal IQ, I went to a school that once called itself Western Normal College. So, yes, I think average readers can calibrate for bias.

In some ways, Shafer seems to be advocating a position similar to one described by The Economist earlier this year, as part of a package about the evolution of journalism in an age where anyone can be a publisher and a reporter — thanks to what Om has called the “democracy of distribution” provided by blogs, social networks and tools like Twitter. As The Economist noted, the disruption of media has created an environment much like the early days of journalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, before the arrival of mass media forms like the newspaper or the radio program.

As Shafer said in the Poynter discussion, having reporters and other journalists disclose their views and opinions actually makes it easier for readers and listeners to determine whether they want to trust their reporting — and as David Weinberger noted in his post about transparency, the web allows for the inclusion of links and other features that make it easier for users to check facts and come to their own conclusions. Objectivity, he said, is “a trust mechanism you rely on when your medium can’t do links.” It’s time we allowed journalists to be human beings, both online and off.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Rosauro Ochoa and Yodel Anecdotal

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• Flash analysis: the future of Yahoo
• The mobile backhaul market, 2011-2012: more innovation, greater competition

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Since the creation of the Young Turks radio show in 2002, Uygur has been a vocal left-wing voice in political commentary, especially after coming to the online video world and becoming one of YouTube’s most prominent political commentary channels. That success lead him to appear as a commentator on numerous mainstream news programs, with Uygur eventually taking over the hosting of MSNBC Live.

However, this week it was announced that Uygur would not be returning to the show — for reasons Uygur and MSNBC can’t agree on, and been publicly in disputing about. That dispute has raged on from the New York Times  to Keith Olbermann’s new Current-based Countdown show to the Young Turks YouTube channel.

Uygur’s primary point of contention is that after six months of hosting MSNBC Live, and significantly improving the ratings (including beating CNN’s The Situation Room in the 18-34 year old demographic), he was brought in for a meeting with MSNBC president Phil Griffin. There he was told that he would no longer be hosting Live, and instead would be given a new contract that involved hosting a weekend show. That would have be considered a demotion, even though Uygur was reportedly offered double the paycheck, according to his report on YouTube. Instead of taking the money, Uygur walked away from the deal.

According to the Times, Uygur believed that the reason for this change came from political pressure from the Obama administration, which Uygur has been very vocal in criticizing. This is something Griffin denied in the same article, claiming that “the people in Washington” he had mentioned being unhappy with Uygur’s hosting were not White House officials but MSNBC producers.

Uygur’s most recent meeting with Griffin was a follow-up to an earlier conversation in April, in which Griffin told the host he was not booking enough Republican guests — an assessment Uygur disagreed with — and that he “used his arms too much when he talked.” However, the most notable statement reported coming out of that conversation, in both the Times and Uygur’s comments on YouTube and Countdown, was Griffin’s statement that the channel was part of the “establishment,” and that Uygur needed to “act like it.”

This appears to be the real crux of Uygur’s complaint: the idea of being forced to fit into the mainstream, when so much of his past commentary work had been based on criticizing the way mainstream media covers politics. As he told Olbermann during Countdown, his prior perceptions about how mainstream news works were confirmed as a result of his experience working with MSNBC.

“Are we [the mainstream media] going to be honest with our audience? Or are we going to trade information and truth we’re supposed to be gathering for access?,” was how Uygur summed up the debate for Olbermann. “Now that I’ve been inside that machine, it turns out that we were totally right about our outside perception of it. They are obsessed with access.”

There’s a cautionary tale here, because for many people working on the web, getting the kind of opportunities Uygur has gotten are the ultimate goal. But leaving behind the web’s independence for a larger platform can require compromises. And depending on the personalities involved, those compromises might be impossible.

Uygur, let’s be clear, will probably be just fine. Even if a potential deal with Current doesn’t work out, The Young Turks is still a notable independent web presence with a devoted audience. As Uygur concluded on YouTube:

I was able to take that tough stance [about MSNBC], and why? For the same reason I was able to get onto MSNBC in the first place — you guys. I’ve got the TYT army behind me. I’ve got a show that’s sitting here at half a billion views — up to a million views a day. So I can come back here and do exactly the kind of show I want to do, and kick ass and give you the actual truth and take it to power… Power is very very strong, and has so much influence in our media. But here at the Young Turks we’re going to fight against that.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: The Live-Stream Video Market
• Report: The Connected TV Marketplace
• NewNet Went Social with Partnerships Galore in Q4

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends

Users can now select automatic captioning for Japanese videos by clicking on the CC button and then selecting Transcribe audio:

YouTube rolled out auto-captioning for English-language videos in late 2009. The site expanded the feature to all of its English-language videos in March 2010.

Captions for online video recently came into the spotlight when disability advocates sued Netflix and CNN for failing to provide subtitles for each and every video the companies are serving up online. YouTube’s effort to bring auto-captioning to Japan has been hailed by the country’s Federation of the Deaf, but Google Technical Program Manager for Accessibility Engineering Naomi Black cautioned on Monday that publishers should merely understand the auto-captioning provided by the site as a starting point. On Google+, she explained:

As someone who posts content to YouTube, I wouldn’t rely on auto-captions without review, but it’s a great starting place for making accurate captions, since the video owner can download and edit the captions. And as a viewer, if the video owner hasn’t provided any captions, it does give you some insight into what the video is about.

There’s also another big benefit for publishers and Google alike in expanding automatic captioning: Captions make videos searchable, expanding the discoverability of videos both on YouTube itself as well as via Google. This could help to add more views and improve monetization of video assets.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Market Overview, Q2 2010
• Players and Strategies for Real-Time In-Stream Advertising
• Connected Consumer Q1: The Over-the-Top vs. Pay TV Battle Heats Up

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends

1. Pages

Apple’s own apps will likely be among the first to bring significant changes that leverage the power of iOS 5. Pages will get support for iCloud’s document syncing services, which means that changes you make on one iOS device should automatically be available to on another (and eventually on the desktop too), without any arduous setup requirements. Numbers, Keynote and other third-party editing suites like Documents to Go should get similar improvements in addition to Pages, which will make working with productivity apps on iOS devices much, much easier. Slide presentation apps will also get more useful thanks to Apple’s AirPlay mirroring feature on the iPad 2 that outputs whatever is on the tablet’s screen to a display device attached to an Apple TV.

2. CNN

One thing I initially liked about CNN’s iPhone and iPad apps was that they would provide push notifications for breaking news. Unfortunately, because of the way Apple implemented its notification system, breaking news updates became just another part of the stream of notification alert windows I had to dismiss to get to the home screen. Now, with the new notification bar and Notification Center, CNN’s breaking news updates will act as an unobtrusive daily record of key developments around the world. The best part is, this one doesn’t even require any action on the developer’s part; it’ll just happen when the new notification system is implemented.

3. Instagram

IOS 5 introduces Core Image, a new API that lets developers have access to hardware-accelerated video and photo enhancement as well as editing features. Built-in filters, color correction and facial recognition should make any photo app more versatile, but I think that if properly integrated in Instagram, it could help the photo-sharing service reach the next level. Used alone, or in tandem with Instragram’s existing filter set, individual user photos will look even more distinct, reducing the similarity that photos shared on the network can sometimes suffer from.

4. Real Racing HD 2

This one’s also a sure thing, as Real Racing HD 2 developer Firemint has already said it plans to support wireless AirPlay two-screen gaming once iOS 5 arrives. If you haven’t seen what playing this game on the iPad 2 and your TV with a wired connection is like, check out my video of the process. Doing the same thing without having to worry about yanking the Apple Digital AV Adapter out of your iPod’s dock connector is an exciting prospect, and it should make even more adventurous two-screen gaming applications a reality.

5. iMockups

I really could’ve chose any design or idea notebook app for this one, but iMockups is a particularly good example, because it’s designed with sharing in mind. In iOS 5, developers will have access to iMessage, so that apps can launch iMessage conversations between individuals or groups directly. For teams which have all members using iOS devices, it should make sharing mockup images for feedback with collaborators and stakeholders that much easier, and that much cheaper, too, since iMessage provides the convenience of MMS without the cost.

Have any other suggestions for apps you think will get a major boost from iOS 5?

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• NewNet Went Social with Partnerships Galore in Q4
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• A Global Mobile Handset Platform Forecast, 2011 – 2015

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends

In the year 2000, former Apple, WebTV and Philips employees Andy Rubin, Joe Britt, and Matt Hershenson founded a little company called Danger Incorporated, which you may know from such hits as the original Sidekick and a 0 million sale to Microsoft. One of those three co-founders, Andy Rubin, has since become a very public face at Google, and it turns out he’s recently gotten back together with his former compatriots to do more than just reminisce about the old days. As Fortune reports, both Britt and Hershenson quietly joined Google “within the last twelve months” to run a new Android Hardware wing of the company. So far, much of their work has apparently focused on accessories and, while there’s reportedly no plans for any actual Google-branded accessories anytime soon, Britt reportedly said that he would like to see the company produce some Android peripherals of its own “in the long term.” Of course, Danger also produced its own software back in the day and, as you’re probably aware, the key architect of it, Matias Duarte, is now at Google as well.

[Image: Entrepreneurship.org]

Danger co-founders reunite with Andy Rubin at Google to focus on Android hardware originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 11 May 2011 20:34:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  Fortune / CNN  | Email this | Comments
Engadget

We know that TV networks black out sporting events, but can you black out an entire election? In Canada you can — or at least the government there is trying to do that, for the national election on Monday. According to an ancient provision in the country’s Election Act, the results of the polls can’t be reported in any way until all of the polls across the entire nation are closed. That even extends to posting or re-posting results on blogs, Twitter and Facebook. If this strikes you as ridiculous and/or unachievable, then you know something Canadian officials are trying to ignore: information technology has moved far beyond the law’s ability to deter it.

Coincidentally, we’ve just had a powerful lesson in how news of all kinds is disseminated now, with the death Sunday night of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a U.S. military strike in Pakistan. Within minutes of the announcement that President Barack Obama would be making an address to the American public, hundreds of people were retweeting the fact that bin Laden had been killed — and it wasn’t just a rumor, but a reliable report from the former chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. By the time it was confirmed by The New York Times and CNN, it seemed almost anti-climactic. That is what news is like now, as Emily Bell at the Columbia Journalism School notes.

The reality is that before social media came along, it was relatively easy to control the flow of information — about election results or pretty much anything else — because (in Canada at least) there were only a few major TV networks and a few major news entities. Tell them not to report something, and they would obey. Problem solved! But the tens of millions of people using Twitter and Facebook aren’t likely to bow to those kinds of constraints quite so easily, if they even know about them at all. Many of them may not even be located in Canada, and are therefore beyond the reach of the law (full disclosure: I am Canadian).

Some Twitter users have said they plan to defy the ban. There’s even a website called Tweet the Results, which plans to aggregate any tweets that use the hashtag #tweettheresults — regardless of whether those tweets contain early poll information or not. The site, created by social-media consultants Alexandra Samuel and Darren Barefoot, says that as far as it is concerned “We are not publishing the results ourselves, we’re just collecting what others have said.” It remains to be seen what Elections Canada thinks of this behavior.

The Canada Election Act provision in question has been around since 1938, when state-of-the-art communications technology consisted of the telephone, the telegraph and the carrier pigeon. But it’s not just some dusty sub-clause no one pays any attention to: in 2000, a blogger was charged with an offense for reporting early results on his blog in the Maritimes (the Atlantic time zone) before the polls had closed in the Pacific time zone, and fined ,000. The case was fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007, at which point the blogger lost in a split decision (the clause in question actually provides for maximum fines of up to ,000 and up to five years in prison).

Elections Canada, the department in charge of running the actual polls, has taken pains to warn bloggers and anyone using Twitter and Facebook that they could be liable for these penalties, even if all they do is re-tweet someone else who mentions the early poll results.

And how will they enforce this? Has Elections Canada set up a NASA-style command center with hawk-eyed operatives scanning dozens of screens and filtering the social media-sphere for illicit conversations? Well, no. The department says that it will be relying on complaints from the public in order to pursue any legal actions. But it does plan to pursue them. Meanwhile, the law is in the process of being challenged by several media outlets in Canada, and a number of experts have testified about how ludicrous it is — including law professor Michael Geist, whose affidavit to the court is here (PDF link).

Eventually, one hopes, the law will either be removed or simply never be enforced — like the one that requires every British male over the age of 14 to engage in two hours of long-bow practice every day.

Thumbnail photo courtesy of Flickr user Jennifer Moo

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• Finding the Value in Social Media Data
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• Defining Hadoop: the Players, Technologies and Challenges of 2011

alt='The cloud-optimized networks of tomorrow run on Brocade Ethernet fabrics today. Assess Your Cloud Readiness. Download Forrester Study »'
border='0' width='300' height='250'
/>

GigaOM

While there are doubtless plenty of Americans who will wake up tomorrow to be greeted with the news that a special operations mission has killed bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, millions discovered the news Sunday night on Twitter or Facebook. And while they may have tuned into the news on television, many more watched the live stream from the White House on the web, or streamed it from Al-Jazeera, CNN or countless other sites offering the news in real time. And some likely followed it via Twitter for far longer than the brief address.

From the time of the reported first tweet on the topic, coming from @KeithUrbahn who lists himself as “Chief of Staff, Office of Donald Rumsfeld, Navy Reserve intel officer, and owner of two miniature dachshunds. Opinions are my own,” which was posted around 10:25 p.m. EDT, Twittersphere and Facebook denizens followed a compressed news cycle as folks waited for confirmation from someone, anyone.

Excitement. These tweets quickly followed expressing a tone of excitement and the thrill of being first to report potentially huge news.

Uncertainty. Almost as fast as the news hit, the doubters came out questioning whether the news was legitimate or not. Some were waiting for the news venue of their choice to weigh in, while others were waiting for the coming statement from the president.

Searching for Validation. Torn between wanting the news to be true and the fear of being wrong, folks turned either reverential in their love of Al-Jazeera or the New York Times or whoever was already reporting details or scornful of those who might have been more cautious.

Confirmation. The White House confirmed, and now the search for meaning, data and tasteless jokes will begin in earnest.

Jokes, Profits and Platitudes. Once confirmed, the platitudes, jokes and attempts to profit either via owning a domain, a twitter identity (say hello to @ghostosama) or the umpteenth joke about the birthers now asking for a long form death certificate are free to escalate. Meanwhile Google updates its Maps to show the location where bin Laden was killed.

Action. This is where Facebook and social media really shine. From tweets about people seeking more information from friends to those seeking to find out if others are meeting at Ground Zero by checking out a live web cam of the site, people now can learn about news and do something.

Real Analysis. Not on Twitter, unless it’s via a link to a blog or a newspaper. What insight on geopolitics can one really offer in 140 characters?

Maybe it’s time to recognize these stages, or come up with more thoughtful ones, so we can recognize where we are when we tune into this cycle and behave accordingly. As journalists, we often get scoops or hear of news and have to make a similar set of judgments before reporting it, but on Twitter, what often starts out as gossip now has the weight of news. As recipients, we have no way to judge at first glance though if it’s real or wishful thinking. Perhaps its time we gave ourselves a better set of tools?

With additional reporting by Cyndy Aleo.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• Finding the Value in Social Media Data
• Defining Hadoop: the Players, Technologies and Challenges of 2011

alt='Join Gameloft’s new studio!'
border='0' width='300' height='250'
/>

GigaOM

Just how are you going to celebrate the big day? There’ll be street parties nationwide with bunting, tressle tables, and red, white and blue everywhere. It is a opportunity for people to get together and have a great time. It is also the chance to meet neighbours you seldom see and even those you don’t know.

For those who have small children, you can get out the face paints and decorate them with the Union Jack. For food,red jelly with icecream will certainly be a hit with them. You could also make some fairy cakes in advance and adorn them with red, white and blue icing.

For something more civilised, why not order a celebratory Royal Wedding hamper and find an attractive location to have a picnic. Perhaps a spot of celebratory sparkling wine is called for too…. Royal Wedding hampers with various patriotic contents are available now.

The Royal Marriage starts at 11am and coverage will be extensive. BBC1, ITV, Channel 5, Sky News and CNN will all be covering the event as will major radio channels. You’ll also have special programs in the days after the event.

It’s not only people in the UK that will be commemorating. It is also the perfect opportunity for many ex-pats to get together and party. The British Club in Singapore is probably having the biggest festivities with ten days of activities planned, including a high tea and an Ascot themed ladies night.

There are also an abundance of pieces of memorabilia you can buy to use on the day and keep as a souvenir. Plenty of china cups and plates are available and there are special flags too. Items that are suitable just for the day include paper cups and plates, serviettes, and balloons. There are also some quirky royal themed items including the Pieminister Kate and Wills pork pie, tea bag holders, doggy t-shirts, and even a pair of garden gnomes in wedding attire and some sick bags!

Whatever you finish up doing on 29th April, it is guaranteed to be a day to remember for many years to come.